Hardy Extension Announced Today

[Frobby]

No, when was right. Everyone eventually loses their range, and it would be surprising if Hardy held off until his late 30s.

I think Hardy will lose a little range over the next three years, but not much. From a post I've republished 3-4 times in various threads:

Here are a couple of really good studies of how infield range and efficiency declines with age:

Camden Depot: http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2010...urves.html?m=1

Tom Tango: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...-aging-curves/

Both studies show that range and/or efficiency declines pretty significantly between peak (age 27-28) and 32. In the Camden Depot study, SS defense declined about 1.4 wins in that period, and there wasn't enough data to reach conclusions about SS over age 32. In Tango's study, the rate of drop in range/efficiency actually slowed significantly between ages 32-34, dropping only about 7 plays (probably about half a win) during that three year stretch.

I have done some anectdotal looking at a number of shortstops who had high similarity ratings through age 30 (the two Alex Gonzalez's, Orlando Cabrera) and some elite guys (Ripken, Jeter, Tejada, Vizquel), and overall their defensive value held up very well through age 34.

My bottom line is that I don't expect Hardy to be as good at ages 32-34 (2015-17) as he was at ages 28-30 (the three years we've had him so far). But Hardy has been elite for those three years, and I think he's got 2-3 more years of being significantly above average and then he'll be average for a bit. He's been worth 11.2 rWAR (6.1 dWAR), 10.3 fWAR (27.2 UZR) in those three years. Put him down for 6-9 WAR from 2015-17 and pay him accordingly.

I originally posted this in February, so when I said "I think he's got 2-3 more years of being significantly above average and then he'll be average for a bit," he's now used up one of his 2-3 years of being significantly above average -- which he certainly was this year. 3.4 rWAR (2.1 dWAR), 3.4 fWAR (13.9 UZR) in 2014, and worth $18.8 mm this year at FA prices according to fangraphs.

[Crazysilver03]

Yeah. Well. If JJ can't play short I guess he'll have to DH. I don't see his shoulder working for third. I hope Manny can stay healthy enough to play third base through to play short until he leaves in 2019.

If JJ can't play short than it would seem he would be on the bench with an occasional start at DH. Hardy doesn't produce enough offense to warrant being the DH.

[Hallas]

Really it isn't.

First off what is the value of the pick the O's won't be getting? You can go ahead and add that to the 40 million right off the top. Secondly the 48 million number is probably going to include teams that do not have the financial restrictions the O's do. 40 million to the O's is more then 48 is to the Dodgers. Thirdly you have to accept the fact that Hardy will in short order have trade protection which limits team flexibility. Then you have to include the vesting option which could be rather onerous.

It is far from a no brainer.

Not like the 3/21 deal was.

I don't know if the 3/21 deal was a total no-brainer. The 3 seasons prior to signing that deal, he had been worth 1.2, 2.2, and 4.3 WAR, and failed to play 130 games in any of those seasons. We got him at a discount because there was substantial injury/non-performance risk. Going forward, it seems like the primary risk is with injury, because we can reasonably expect him to perform. That's not to discount the possibility that he falls off a cliff due to age, but he has a much better baseline from which we can project his decline now after 3 decent seasons than he did after 2011. Furthermore, it seems as the injury risk is a lot lower now than it was 3 years ago, given that he's actually played a full season or close to it for the duration of his last contract.

[srock]

If we had a SS in the minors ready to start then I wouldn't have spent this money. But we don't. This is the cost of that mistake. And it really isn't that bad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weams]

We also gave up a supplemental pick to do this extension. Somehow I am still happy.

[scOtt]

There is something to be said for not making things too difficult for yourself as a GM. There are still plenty of pending roster decisions in potential need of creative solutions.

That's a good point. Hardy is a big solid piece of our team now locked up and done. On to other things.

If the deal is less than productive, it's not a stinging loss.

If the deal completely craps out ala BRob, it happens. It's the risk you take on every contract.

[JayThomas]

Yes, as far as free agent deals go it's pretty likely to be fair. We'll see what the O's payroll is going forward, and then make the call as to how many roster spots they can devote to players on fair free agent contracts.

Yes, this is the key point. Fair market value of a win is based on FA's. The Orioles are not a team that can be constructed entirely of fair market FA values. We have to choose wisely how to allocate resources.

I'm fine with signing JJ, but it's not like it won't impact who gets what elsewhere on the team. The O's budget is like a water balloon. It's an expanding zero sum game.

[Frobby]

Yes, this is the key point. Fair market value of a win is based on FA's. The Orioles are not a team that can be constructed entirely of fair market FA values. We have to choose wisely how to allocate resources.

I'm fine with signing JJ, but it's not like it won't impact who gets what elsewhere on the team. The O's budget is like a water balloon. It's an expanding zero sum game.

There is almost no team that can be comprised entirely of players making fair market free agent salaries. However, we have remarkably few who are doing so. We have three starting pitchers (Tillman, Gonzalez, Gausman) and two everyday position players (Machado and Schoop) who are making close to the major league minimum. This year we had only three players (Markakis, Jones, Jimenez) who were making true FA salaries (Hardy and Cruz were being paid at a ridiculous discount). So, while I agree that we have to limit the players earning full freight (or more), I don't think we are at the point where the water balloon you describe is in danger of bursting.

[Frobby]

I think the point is, finding the young SS who is going to be the next Hardy and provide significant excess value isn't the easiest thing in the world, as our past attempts well illustrate.

If we weren't a World Series-contending team right now, the case to dump Hardy and try to find a young SS who will become a cheaper version of Hardy would make a lot of sense. But this team is in "win now" mode, legitimately so. You can take that too far, as the Phillies have recently shown, but I don't feel we are way out a that end of the spectrum. Hardy's 31, not 37.

None of the Phillies were 37, either.

I hope JJ's deal works out.

Raul Ibanez was 37 or older. And the average age of the Phillies' batters has been over 30 for 7 years in a row, and was 31.4 the year before they began their slide to mediocrity. In their last good year (in which they won 102 games, by the way), they had a 39 year old LF, a 35 year old 3B, and 32-year olds at C, 2B and SS. Their top 8 hitters, in terms of plate appearances all were 30+. Three of their top four starting pitchers were at least 32 years old.

The Orioles' hitters, by contrast, average 28.4 years old. Of their top 8 hitters, 4 are under 30, and for that matter, two of them are under 23. The senior statesmen of their rotation (Jimenez and Gonzalez) are 30, their ace is 26, and they have a 23-year old who may be their ace soon. They are not an old team by any stretch, and won't be for quite some time.

[JayThomas]

There is almost no team that can be comprised entirely of players making fair market free agent salaries. However, we have remarkably few who are doing so. We have three starting pitchers (Tillman, Gonzalez, Gausman) and two everyday position players (Machado and Schoop) who are making close to the major league minimum. This year we had only three players (Markakis, Jones, Jimenez) who were making true FA salaries (Hardy and Cruz were being paid at a ridiculous discount). So, while I agree that we have to limit the players earning full freight (or more), I don't think we are at the point where the water balloon you describe is in danger of bursting.

I think we're right there, since 4 of the 5 guys who are about to be free agents this year or next are moving from the value guys to FA guys and we're already at, what, $115 this year? Only Markakis is due for a decrease. Hardy, Cruz, Davis, Wieters would represent $20-30 more per year at FA prices. We are there now. We are at the decision point. We can't re-up all these guys at market prices.

That's not considering that we're going to have do something with Tillman soon, and get Machado down for a long-term deal or not.

I know you know this, but we're not operating in a vacuum. There's a reason why this team is so good. We have great players. Great players cost a lot of money unless they are very young. Cruz and Hardy were absurd steals in 2014. They won't play for us going forward at steals like that (witness JJ). So I think that it is very relevant what it costs to retain great players at FA prices, since 5 of our top position players are eligible for the FA market after this season and next.

[Crazysilver03]

If Cruz is signed the O's could very well non-tender Chris Davis and let Markakis walk. Markakis and Davis comprised about 25M of the payroll this year.

What happens to Chris Davis will be interesting. If Cruz and Markakis are back, we have 10 starters for 9 spots. It would seem the easy thing to do would be non-tender or trade Davis. I doubt you would have to non-tender him. Someone will give up a prospect to take a chance on him next year.

[TonySoprano]

If Cruz is signed the O's could very well non-tender Chris Davis and let Markakis walk. Markakis and Davis comprised about 25M of the payroll this year.

My guess is if it were up to Buck, he'd bring back Markakis, but Dan isn't as sentimental.

[JayThomas]

What happens to Chris Davis will be interesting. If Cruz and Markakis are back, we have 10 starters for 9 spots. It would seem the easy thing to do would be non-tender or trade Davis. I doubt you would have to non-tender him. Someone will give up a prospect to take a chance on him next year.

I would much rather have Davis than Cruz or Markakis at this stage in their careers. Chris is very athletic. His upside over a 3 or 4 year contract is much higher than either of the other two's. He's a very good fielder, which fits into the theme of the Orioles these days.

I understand that he f'd up on the adderall. I understand that he hit for sh@# this season and had big holes in his swing. Considering all of that, he might be able to be signed now for a reasonable price and he has a reasonable chance of rebounding with a very high ceiling and a not-bad floor (I am assuming that this season was the floor).

[24fps]

JJ Hardy at SS - a guilty pleasure to some it seems. Not me. I'm glad he's coming back even if it's not the most strategically sound decision that could ever be made in a vacuum.

[Frobby]

I think we're right there, since 4 of the 5 guys who are about to be free agents this year or next are moving from the value guys to FA guys and we're already at, what, $115 this year? Only Markakis is due for a decrease. Hardy, Cruz, Davis, Wieters would represent $20-30 more per year at FA prices. We are there now. We are at the decision point. We can't re-up all these guys at market prices.

That's not considering that we're going to have do something with Tillman soon, and get Machado down for a long-term deal or not.

I know you know this, but we're not operating in a vacuum. There's a reason why this team is so good. We have great players. Great players cost a lot of money unless they are very young. Cruz and Hardy were absurd steals in 2014. They won't play for us going forward at steals like that (witness JJ). So I think that it is very relevant what it costs to retain great players at FA prices, since 5 of our top position players are eligible for the FA market after this season and next.

Fair enough point. According to BB-ref, our payroll was $105.5 mm this year, not $115 mm. You're certainly right that it would cost a lot more than that to keep the team intact for long. In addition to Hardy and Cruz, you'd expect Norris, Tillman, Gonzo, Pearce and Britton to get pretty sizeable raises, with only Markakis earning noticeably less than in 2014. At the same time, the MLB TV contract is increasing each year, attendance was up, and there will be a nice chunk of postseason revenue for the Orioles.